(Ordinals) BRC-20 needs to be removed

[gmaxwell]

there's only one way to fully validate the current utxo set and that is by downloading the entire blockchain from the genesis block.

If that we're true you'd have a point, but the good news is that isn't.

It's possible using cryptography to construct proof for statements like "0xDEADBEEF is the hash of the tip of a blockchain starting at the genesis block where all rules pass, with total difficulty Y", where the proof is much smaller than the blockchain (in some cases only a few hundred bytes).

Such systems are already in production use for small programs today. Scaling them up to work over the whole bitcoin blockchain is a (considerable) engineering exercise, but I think it's inevitable-- well inevitable that the proof systems are developed to that extent.  If Bitcoin will deploy them or not will depend on if anyone is still willing to work on it.

(And you should hope these tools are developed, because we've already seen what people do when validating the history becomes too expensive-- they skip it)

Example i mentioned is definitely extreme case. But since we're talking about 18TB, i would speculate he just collect every Linux ISO which is exist on internet. And i've seen few people claim they receive similar threat when they exceed 2TB of internet usage.

Add me to the list. Downloading the 2.6TB archive of all historical reddit posts got me one.

[larry_vw_1955]

If that we're true you'd have a point, but the good news is that isn't.

It's possible using cryptography to construct proof for statements like "0xDEADBEEF is the hash of the tip of a blockchain starting at the genesis block where all rules pass, with total difficulty Y", where the proof is much smaller than the blockchain (in some cases only a few hundred bytes).

Such systems are already in production use for small programs today. Scaling them up to work over the whole bitcoin blockchain is a (considerable) engineering exercise, but I think it's inevitable-- well inevitable that the proof systems are developed to that extent.  If Bitcoin will deploy them or not will depend on if anyone is still willing to work on it.

(And you should hope these tools are developed, because we've already seen what people do when validating the history becomes too expensive-- they skip it)

i'm skeptical that such a system could work for bitcoin unless they changed up the structure of bitcoin blocks to include some type of utxo set commitment inside each block. but i guess if you did that, maybe it could work.

because the way it is right now, an individual block doesn't really tell you anything about what the existing utxo set is or any of its properties. that would need to change somehow.

[gmaxwell]

i'm skeptical that such a system could work for bitcoin unless they changed up the structure of bitcoin blocks to include some type of utxo set commitment inside each block. but i guess if you did that, maybe it could work.

because the way it is right now, an individual block doesn't really tell you anything about what the existing utxo set is or any of its properties. that would need to change somehow.

Nah.  That could be side information computed as part the proving process, it doesn't need to be part of the block commitment.

E.g. prove "block hash x with resulting utxo state hash xu is a valid successor to block y with utxo state hash yu".

And each block commits to every prior utxo set state by committing to the history of all blocks before it.  So, for example its possible to construct a proof that says "output 0xDEADBEEF:01 is a member of the utxo set at height 1000 of this chain with height 1001 hash Y" its just that the prover must process the whole chain up to height 1000 while constructing the proof.  The prover might be more efficient with an optimized commitment structure but it isn't necessary.  You can produce a proof for the output of ANY program. If a program can validate it, a proof can be provided.

[larry_vw_1955]

Nah.  That could be side information computed as part the proving process, it doesn't need to be part of the block commitment.

E.g. prove "block hash x with resulting utxo state hash xu is a valid successor to block y with utxo state hash yu".

And each block commits to every prior utxo set state by committing to the history of all blocks before it.  So, for example its possible to construct a proof that says "output 0xDEADBEEF:01 is a member of the utxo set at height 1000 of this chain with height 1001 hash Y" its just that the prover must process the whole chain up to height 1000 while constructing the proof.  The prover might be more efficient with an optimized commitment structure but it isn't necessary.  You can produce a proof for the output of ANY program. If a program can validate it, a proof can be provided.

it seems like such a huge problem for such a simple seeming thing. if everyone could just agree on the same utxo set at a certain block height they could jettison everything that came before that. kind of   and then it would be like restarting the entire blockchain from a new genisys block the only difference would be there was an existing utxo set not an empty one...that's how you solve the storage problem. every so often the chain has to be reset.
 

[gmaxwell]

If you're okay with the security implications of that, then fine! it's yet another explanation as to why there is very little to think the retrieveability of this data will be high far into the future.  My more elaborate answer only explains that even if you hold the security properties constant there is little reason to expect it.

[larry_vw_1955]

If you're okay with the security implications of that, then fine! it's yet another explanation as to why there is very little to think the retrieveability of this data will be high far into the future.  My more elaborate answer only explains that even if you hold the security properties constant there is little reason to expect it.

Comcast debuts 2Gbps internet service in four states
https://www.engadget.com/comcast-gigabit-2x-announced-203440991.html

Seagate's HAMR hard drives will debut with a whopping 32TB capacity this year, 40TB to follow
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/91797/seagates-hamr-hard-drives-will-debut-with-whopping-32tb-capacity-this-year-40tb-to-follow/index.html

I'm not so convinced its going to be necessary to do anything at all. I guess we'll have to wait and see. yes not everyone is going to have access to these things due to their location/financial situation but some people will.

[gmaxwell]

Comcast debuts 2Gbps internet service in four states
https://www.engadget.com/comcast-gigabit-2x-announced-203440991.html

I see in the thread that several people have explained to you already that these claimed speeds are at best peak rates, and in practice are pretty much a lie.  Comcast, for example, sends termination threats to users with sustained rate of >=6.2 mbps averaged over a month (I got one last month).

It's already also been explained to you that embedded irrelevant data in Bitcoin is *already* getting people sued.  

Meanwhile, to the extent that it really is no big deal, then you should expect systems *designed* to store data for people to exist and be usable and get the job done.

Expecting Bitcoin which is expressly *not* designed to do this, doesn't do it efficiently (e.g. no affordance for distributing storage across multiple systems) and hardly even does it today (as mentioned: it doesn't provide arbitrary retrieval) to do it for you in the future is seems foolish indeed.

But hey, maybe mankind is just too fucking stupid to deserve Bitcoin and it'll get fucked up by abusive idiots that can't resist urinating in the public water fountain any time there isn't a physical barrier preventing them from doing it.  That would be sad, but it would be far from the first time it's happened.

[larry_vw_1955]

Comcast debuts 2Gbps internet service in four states
https://www.engadget.com/comcast-gigabit-2x-announced-203440991.html

I see in the thread that several people have explained to you already that these claimed speeds are at best peak rates, and in practice are pretty much a lie.  Comcast, for example, sends termination threats to users with sustained rate of >=6.2 mbps averaged over a month (I got one last month).

It's already also been explained to you that embedded irrelevant data in Bitcoin is *already* getting people sued.  

Meanwhile, to the extent that it really is no big deal, then you should expect systems *designed* to store data for people to exist and be usable and get the job done.

Expecting Bitcoin which is expressly *not* designed to do this, doesn't do it efficiently (e.g. no affordance for distributing storage across multiple systems) and hardly even does it today (as mentioned: it doesn't provide arbitrary retrieval) to do it for you in the future is seems foolish indeed.

But hey, maybe mankind is just too fucking stupid to deserve Bitcoin and it'll get fucked up by abusive idiots that can't resist urinating in the public water fountain any time there isn't a physical barrier preventing them from doing it.  That would be sad, but it would be far from the first time it's happened.

i mean greg, if bitcoin permits it then how can you say it is wrong to do it? you're really coming down hard on me and i wasn't trying to argue with you at all. i was just pointing out that tech is progressing at a rapid rate.

i'm supposed to believe a few people posting here over an authoritative article let's look at part of what it said:


The Gigabit 2x plan will initially limit customers to uploading files at 200Mbps. However, starting in 2023, multi-gig symmetrical speeds will be possible, thanks to a technology called DOCSIS 4.0.

Comcast has been transitioning to the standard for the past few years. Once that work is complete, it will have the network in place to offer 10Gbps download speeds and 6Gbps upload speeds on the same connection. In turn, that would allow it to provide symmetrical speeds across many of its cable packages. That’s an area where cable has historically lagged compared to fiber optic internet.


it doesn't matter if bitcoin was designed to store data or not. all that matters is if people use it for that or not.

comparing using bitcoin to do something that is allowed by the rules as they currently exist and have existed since early this year to something illegal like urinating in a public water fountain yeah you need to update your logic...

now, if you'll excuse me i think i need to go do an internet speedtest to see if they're giving me what i'm supposed to be getting. all this talk about being ripped off by ISPs has me wanting to double check...

[Cricktor]

At first I feel it's kind of off-topic to talk about ISPs and their not uncommon bandwidth lies, but it has actually something to do with this thread's topic and concerns some have with this Ordinals and BRC-20 stuff.

I pay for VDSL internet connection with around 100MBit down- and 40MBit upstream and I get this bandwidth in both directions, multiple times tested to full extend. It's not the cheapest provider in my area (I'm first world citizen, btw) and I deliberately stay at my provider because I never had any severe issues with service delivery quality and reliability of my connection. I'm OK to pay more for that.
Monthly I create traffic between 300-400 GiB both down- and upstream, my average is usually somewhere in between 600-750 GiB/month combined. Very occasionally I have peaked this to over one TiB/month combined. I have no explicit volume cap in my contract nor did I ever receive any contract termination threat from my provider. In above volume there's some Youtube and other streaming included, but that part isn't much because I didn't stream a lot in the last few months.

Can I expect this to be the norm for others? Of course, not! And I don't know why @larry_vw_1955 thinks that his ISP "luxury" could be the norm for others everywhere. (I might over-exaggerate it a bit...)


Bigger HDDs or SSDs can easily hold the blockchain for years in the future but a constantly bloated blockchain still takes more time to transfer (puts more toll on those who provide blockchain data online and on the receiver side due to maybe bandwidth restrictions), takes probably more time to verify and the bloated space requirement is on everybody who wants or needs to hold a full copy of the blockchain (current pruning isn't ideal and doesn't help or work for all situations). Better newer hardware shouldn't be an excuse for bloating or missuse.

I simply don't think it's a good and worthy idea to be able to store up to nearly 4MB of arbitrary metadata into a Bitcoin transaction even if you have to pay the fee market price for it. I can't judge the pictures or other data that people throw into the blockchain with the Ordinals shit. The ability to easily do it is a flaw in my opinion and we all have to suffer the consequences of it.

[larry_vw_1955]

I pay for VDSL internet connection with around 100MBit down- and 40MBit upstream and I get this bandwidth in both directions, multiple times tested to full extend. It's not the cheapest provider in my area (I'm first world citizen, btw) and I deliberately stay at my provider because I never had any severe issues with service delivery quality and reliability of my connection. I'm OK to pay more for that.
Monthly I create traffic between 300-400 GiB both down- and upstream, my average is usually somewhere in between 600-750 GiB/month combined. Very occasionally I have peaked this to over one TiB/month combined. I have no explicit volume cap in my contract nor did I ever receive any contract termination threat from my provider. In above volume there's some Youtube and other streaming included, but that part isn't much because I didn't stream a lot in the last few months.

and you my friend are on the very low end of the internet speed continuum i would have to say. just a fact here in the usa.

Can I expect this to be the norm for others? Of course, not! And I don't know why @larry_vw_1955 thinks that his ISP "luxury" could be the norm for others everywhere. (I might over-exaggerate it a bit...)

it may not be the norm for others but if they expect to be in the digital age, then there's just some things they won't be able to do if they have a speed like yours even. yours is on the very low end of what someone might consider acceptable in this day and age. here in the USA particularly.

Better newer hardware shouldn't be an excuse for bloating or missuse.

IMO if someone has an issue with block size now vs pre-segwit then they have an issue with segwit. so they should direct their finger in that direction rather than people using the features of segwit to make blocks bigger than 1MB. whether someone considers segwit to be bloating or misusing the blockchain is their own opinion. hardware tech can handle it though and much more. kind of like someone that expects to be able to run a full linux distro using an old computer with a 200MB hard drive. they just need to get with the times. or suffer the consequences.

I simply don't think it's a good and worthy idea to be able to store up to nearly 4MB of arbitrary metadata into a Bitcoin transaction even if you have to pay the fee market price for it. I can't judge the pictures or other data that people throw into the blockchain with the Ordinals shit. The ability to easily do it is a flaw in my opinion and we all have to suffer the consequences of it.

well thats how bitcoin works. if you don't like the idea of storing other peoples' transactional information then maybe you don't want to run a full node. decentralized does not mean free or without any burden or responsibility...just my opinion. keep in mind, what business is it of yours what someone else's bitcoin transaction is for? none at all right? you shouldn't care or be concerned about it. because that's their business as long as their transaction follows the consensus rules it's none of anyone's business what the details of the transaction are. who sent it, who they send it to, none of that.

[Cricktor]

and you my friend are on the very low end of the internet speed continuum i would have to say. just a fact here in the usa.

My bandwidth plan isn't the max that my ISP offers, I could've more if I wanted, but frankly I don't need more and I don't see a reason to pay for more when I rarely even saturate my current bandwidth limits, YMMV though.

it may not be the norm for others but if they expect to be in the digital age, then there's just some things they won't be able to do if they have a speed like yours even. yours is on the very low end of what someone might consider acceptable in this day and age. here in the USA particularly.

I'm curious to learn what the tip of the digital age has bandwidth needs for. What am I missing out without even knowing it? Again, YMMV. I don't know why you constantly try to impose your bandwidth needs onto others. Or maybe I missinterpret it?

I had 50/10 MBit before and didn't feel too bad with the download speed, but the upload speed of 10MBit was sometimes a bit of a bottleneck. That's why I took  the opportunity to up my plan to 100+/40+ when there was a nice offer with some other nice options from my ISP. The next plan at my location would be 250/40 MBit which only would give me more download speed which I don't need maybe 95+% of the time.
Glass fiber is coming too, my ISP has done most of its part to provide it in my area, at least they claim it, but house owners and rental need to do their part that the building where I live gets FTTH installed. If and once this is done, there will be plans like 1000/200 MBit.

I'd still have to find applications in my household for such a bandwidth. Sure, it's nice to have, but it's not for free and I'd need to have a reason to pay for it, which I currently simply don't have. No need to waste money here.

IMO if someone has an issue with block size now vs pre-segwit then they have an issue with segwit. so they should direct their finger in that direction rather than people using the features of segwit to make blocks bigger than 1MB. whether someone considers segwit to be bloating or misusing the blockchain is their own opinion. hardware tech can handle it though and much more. kind of like someone that expects to be able to run a full linux distro using an old computer with a 200MB hard drive. they just need to get with the times. or suffer the consequences.

Where do you read in my posts that I have an issue with segwit block sizes or your other silly claims. I'm fine with and don't oppose Segwit block sizes. You make your false claims for what reason exactly?
My personal opinion is that I'm not OK with to exploit a loophole in Taproot which allows to arbitrarily fill witness data space until Segwit limits for even a single transaction, i.e. Ordinals crap filling the blockchain with some bullshit. You're right, it's not on me to judge what is bullshit or not. This arbitrarily added data has nothing to do with the transaction details like inputs and outputs itself.

well thats how bitcoin works. if you don't like the idea of storing other peoples' transactional information then maybe you don't want to run a full node. decentralized does not mean free or without any burden or responsibility...just my opinion. keep in mind, what business is it of yours what someone else's bitcoin transaction is for? none at all right? you shouldn't care or be concerned about it. because that's their business as long as their transaction follows the consensus rules it's none of anyone's business what the details of the transaction are. who sent it, who they send it to, none of that.

I assume your mental capacity allows you to distinguish between mandatory transaction content like inputs and outputs and superficially added arbitrary data that isn't necessary for a Bitcoin transaction. We might differ in opinions about that. And btw I don't oppose the OP_RETURN mechanism at all. This has sensible limits which were rarely abused like what we see now with Ordinals.
I don't care about others spent inputs and destination outputs of transactions. Sure, valid transactions have to follow consensus rules, that's not new. But it isn't the first time that some flaws show up in Bitcoin. It's rare but it happened in the past and in my opinion we have a flaw right now. If and how that is to be dealt with, it's not me alone to decide, no question.

[larry_vw_1955]

My bandwidth plan isn't the max that my ISP offers, I could've more if I wanted, but frankly I don't need more and I don't see a reason to pay for more when I rarely even saturate my current bandwidth limits, YMMV though.

I agree. For many use cases,  people don't need insane network speeds. Even something like 50mbps down and 5 up might work. But you're not going to be downloading the blockchain very fast that way. Nor will you be downloading things like Windows 10 very fast but I guess it could be done. Funny thing is, even with no bandwith limit on your side, the site you're trying to hit up might be slow which means you're still downloading slowly.

I'm curious to learn what the tip of the digital age has bandwidth needs for. What am I missing out without even knowing it? Again, YMMV. I don't know why you constantly try to impose your bandwidth needs onto others. Or maybe I missinterpret it?

this was like 4 or 5 years ago that I saw someone looking for people to upload videos for them. And guess what? They didn't want people with slow speeds. I think he might have said something like if you're lower than 128mbps on the upload then don't even bother. Probably plenty of people had higher than that. That was 4 or 5 years ago. Just imagine what he wants from them now. Probably 500 or more. So yeah, uploading videos...

I had 50/10 MBit before and didn't feel too bad with the download speed, but the upload speed of 10MBit was sometimes a bit of a bottleneck. That's why I took  the opportunity to up my plan to 100+/40+ when there was a nice offer with some other nice options from my ISP. The next plan at my location would be 250/40 MBit which only would give me more download speed which I don't need maybe 95+% of the time.

no one ever said people need to have 100/40. unless someone is doing something like uploading videos or downloading movies all the time or huge ISO images of Windows all the time I would think even less than 100/40 would be perfectly fine. Unless their job requires them to be doing HD videoconferencing or something. Not sure what that would require.

Glass fiber is coming too, my ISP has done most of its part to provide it in my area, at least they claim it, but house owners and rental need to do their part that the building where I live gets FTTH installed. If and once this is done, there will be plans like 1000/200 MBit.

And then most of the time it sits there unused except for a couple hours a day maybe when someone is browing the web or watching youtube. could be a complete waste of money. And then you have to ask how much data can they really transfer before they get booted?

I'd still have to find applications in my household for such a bandwidth. Sure, it's nice to have, but it's not for free and I'd need to have a reason to pay for it, which I currently simply don't have. No need to waste money here.

i agree. what the ISP industry is trying to do is get rid of the lower speed plans so they can charge more for the more expensive ones but still limit you to the same amount of data transfer per month. that's the real issue. people don't really need 1000/200. unless they're doing something specialized like uploading tons of videos.

[BrianH]

Now even the government has identified the BRC-20 bug.

In Bitcoin Core through 26.0 and Bitcoin Knots before 25.1.knots20231115, datacarrier size limits can be bypassed by obfuscating data as code (e.g., with OP_FALSE OP_IF), as exploited in the wild by Inscriptions in 2022 and 2023.

Ordinals are now identified as a vulnerability

Bitcoin Core developer, Luke Dashjr, told his 83,300 followers in a recent tweet on X that inscriptions are exploiting a vulnerability in Bitcoin Core to spam the blockchain. Since 2013, Bitcoin Core allows users to set a limit on the size of extra data in transactions that they relay. Inscriptions bypass this limit and this makes them a “vulnerability.”

Dashjr says that Bitcoin Core is still vulnerable in the upcoming v26 release and the developer hopes to finally fix the issue before v27 next year.

https://www.fxstreet.com/cryptocurrencies/news/bitcoin-core-developer-calls-ordinals-a-vulnerability-for-the-btc-blockchain-202312101100
They are finally going to end this vulnerability!

Integrating Ordinals into Bitcoin can be likened to the act of spraying neon graffiti on revered ancient monuments like the colosseum or the pyramids. These structures stand as architectural marvels and testaments of historical significance. Imagine them suddenly covered in flashy, modern neon spray paint.
...
In a similar vein, the introduction of Ordinals into Bitcoin feels like a significant misstep. It disrespects and distorts the foundational principles of Bitcoin, turning a groundbreaking financial innovation into a cluttered display of digital extravagance. This transformation not only undermines the original vision of Bitcoin but also challenges the very essence of what made it a monumental breakthrough in the digital world.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/ordinals-put-digital-graffiti-bitcoin-blockchain
CoinTelegraph comes down hard on this vulnerability.

Take a look at recent Bitcoin fees. Just passed an all-time high, since the BRC-20 bug was introduced. BRC-20 spammers were rushing to spam the network with @#$% pics before they were cut off, but the Ordinals.com website was spammed! Haha how ironic. Karma.

[NotATether]

Take a look at recent Bitcoin fees. Just passed an all-time high, since the BRC-20 bug was introduced. BRC-20 spammers were rushing to spam the network with @#$% pics before they were cut off, but the Ordinals.com website was spammed! Haha how ironic. Karma.

So looks like the rumors of a hard fork really do seem more credible if this is going to be patched out.

The explosive fees have finally forced me to adopt the lightning network, and now I even got my own node.

I think in the future instead of running our own bitcoin nodes and putting c-lightning or LND on them, we will just rent out a node from a provider like Voltage. and then buy channels with Amboss.

But now with that sorted, yeah I'd like the madness on layer 1 to stop. They can make an inscriptions fork if they want, but I'm gonna be short-selling it. Cause it's going to fail anyway.

[Amphenomenon]

-Snip-

Please Ordinals should be totally scraped out of Bitcoin network, they said with time Mempool will be less congested but as time goes by its becoming more annoying and now what we use as free accelerator (ViaBTC) as been taken by bots, there is no such thing as equity here all they care about is either spamming or making money, there are no decentralisation here, just annoying folks who only cares about themselves

They are still accelerating 100 transactions per hour freely.
The problem is that ordinal scammers are abusing ViaBTC free accelerator with their bots and don't allow humans to submit their transactions.

If you check the last blocks mined by ViaBTC, you will see that they have included many low fee transactions.

Read the post I made in another thread.

but I'm starting to think Viabtc is no longer truly offering 100 tx per hour

I think they do.

Here are the latest two blocks mined by ViaBTC. Transactions are sorted by their fee rate in ascending order.
(Times are in UTC.)

• 823055 (19:31)
• 823066 (22:01)

Just visit the above links and see how many low fee transactions they have included.


According to above times, ViaBTC should have accelerated 300 transactions freely in block number 823066.
Let's check if they did so.


The minimum required fee rate for getting confirmation in block number 823066 was around 100 satoshi. ViaBTC included 312 transactions with the fee rate of less than 90 sat/vbyte. Click here to see all those transactions.
10 out of those 312 transactions were confirmed with CPFP and that means that 302 transactions were accelerated by ViaBTC. All those 302 transactions meet ViaBTC free accelerator requirements.

The problem is how ViaBTC free accelerator is being abused by bots. 294 out of 302 transactions are related to ordinals. They are all 1 input - 1 output transactions paying 23 sat/vbyte.

[serveria.com]

-Snip-

Please Ordinals should be totally scraped out of Bitcoin network, they said with time Mempool will be less congested but as time goes by its becoming more annoying and now what we use as free accelerator (ViaBTC) as been taken by bots, there is no such thing as equity here all they care about is either spamming or making money, there are no decentralisation here, just annoying folks who only cares about themselves

They are still accelerating 100 transactions per hour freely.
The problem is that ordinal scammers are abusing ViaBTC free accelerator with their bots and don't allow humans to submit their transactions.

If you check the last blocks mined by ViaBTC, you will see that they have included many low fee transactions.

Read the post I made in another thread.

but I'm starting to think Viabtc is no longer truly offering 100 tx per hour

I think they do.

Here are the latest two blocks mined by ViaBTC. Transactions are sorted by their fee rate in ascending order.
(Times are in UTC.)

• 823055 (19:31)
• 823066 (22:01)

Just visit the above links and see how many low fee transactions they have included.


According to above times, ViaBTC should have accelerated 300 transactions freely in block number 823066.
Let's check if they did so.


The minimum required fee rate for getting confirmation in block number 823066 was around 100 satoshi. ViaBTC included 312 transactions with the fee rate of less than 90 sat/vbyte. Click here to see all those transactions.
10 out of those 312 transactions were confirmed with CPFP and that means that 302 transactions were accelerated by ViaBTC. All those 302 transactions meet ViaBTC free accelerator requirements.

The problem is how ViaBTC free accelerator is being abused by bots. 294 out of 302 transactions are related to ordinals. They are all 1 input - 1 output transactions paying 23 sat/vbyte.

Yes, I can confirm ViaBTC is plagued by bots. They're offering to accelerate 100 transaction per hour but even if I refresh the page at 10:00, at 10:01 there are no free spots left. Due to ordinals/brc20 spam ddosing the sh*t out of the blockchain my transactions are sitting there 10-20mb from tip for days, even though the fees are quite ok (~100sat/byte). 

[tromp]

They are finally going to end this vulnerability!

Except that they can't. By design, Bitcoin allows a fair amount of entropy even in the plainest of transactions, at least 32 bytes per output.

The harder that you try to censor the current ordinals encoding, the more you force it to adopt alternative encodings exploiting that entropy, that are indistinguishable from regular payments.

While that forces them to pay more in fees, that's clearly not going to stop them.

WORSE yet, by forcing their encodings to be indistinguishable from regular txs, you make it impossible to prune the ordinal data from a full node.

[Greg Tonoski]

Hardfork may not be necessary to keep spam in check. It is possible to bring back the incentives structure that existed before SegWit. Spam didn't benefit from discounted price for blockspace. Currently, legit transactions pay more for pushing bits on Bitcoin and so they are at disadvantage.

The root cause of the issue is so-called "witness discount" introduced in 2017. Everyone (including spammers) paid full price per bit beforehand. Nowadays, spam is privileged - the price for a bit of spam is lower (approx. half the price of a bit of a legit transaction). It is discounted under the so-called "witness data" in contrast to the alternative "OP_RETURN"). There are the details and real examples: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/29146.

Why wasn't the discount vulnerability exploited before 2023? There is the additional limit that acts like "safety valve" but only for Segwit v0 type of transactions and not Segwit v1 (Taproot) which was introduced in late 2021.

Let's restore the incentive structure that existed before SegWit or level playing field. Legit transaction wouldn't be put at disadvantage and could outprice spam. A backward compatible change in Bitcoin Core will be enough to make it happen.

[Greg Tonoski]

WORSE yet, by forcing their encodings to be indistinguishable from regular txs, you make it impossible to prune the ordinal data from a full node.

Prunning the spam from a full node is less of a problem for me. Overpriced legit transaction is top severity issue, I think.

[NotATether]

Yes, I can confirm ViaBTC is plagued by bots. They're offering to accelerate 100 transaction per hour but even if I refresh the page at 10:00, at 10:01 there are no free spots left. Due to ordinals/brc20 spam ddosing the sh*t out of the blockchain my transactions are sitting there 10-20mb from tip for days, even though the fees are quite ok (~100sat/byte). 

A week ago I attempted to script a ViaBTC transaction broadcasting automatically using shell script, it was to wait until e.g. 8:00 sharp and then send a CURL request which I dumped from Google Chrome, the problem is that even that is not working because it complains about invalid captcha. This is despite the fact that I also copied the captcha headers and made sure they were fresh. So I don't know how these bots manage to do it really.

Even worse that it's ORDINALS transactions being broadcaster out of all things, you know, the very transactions that caused this mess in the first place.